High numerical aperture ring field projection system for extreme ultraviolet lithography

ABSTRACT

An all-reflective optical system for a projection photolithography camera has a source of EUV radiation, a wafer and a mask to be imaged on the wafer. The optical system includes a first concave mirror, a second mirror, a third convex mirror, a fourth concave mirror, a fifth convex mirror and a sixth concave mirror. The system is configured such that five of the six mirrors receives a chief ray at an incidence angle of less than substantially 12°, and each of the six mirrors receives a chief ray at an incidence angle of less than substantially 15°. Four of the six reflecting surfaces have an aspheric departure of less than substantially 7 μm. Five of the six reflecting surfaces have an aspheric departure of less than substantially 14 μm. Each of the six reflecting surfaces has an aspheric departure of less than 16.0 μm.

PRIORITY

This is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/453,425, filed Dec. 2,1999 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,183,095 which is a divisional of Ser. No.09/270,127, filed Mar. 15, 1999 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,033,079.

The United States Government has rights in this invention pursuant toContract No. W-7405-ENG-48 between the United States Department ofEnergy and the University of California for the operation of LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention

The invention relates to a high numerical aperture ring field projectionoptical system for extreme ultraviolet (EUV) photolithography, andparticularly to an all-reflective optical system for the camera havingsix reflecting surfaces with low aspheric departure, and small angles ofincidence.

2. Discussion of the Related Art

Short wavelength radiation sources are being used for producing smallfeatures on semiconductor wafers, because the size of the smallestfeatures producible using photolithographic techniques, or the criticaldimension (CD), depends directly on the wavelength of the sourceradiation. For this reason, extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation is apromising radiation source, having wavelengths in the 4 to 30 nm range.Today, extreme ultraviolet (EUV) projection lithographic technology canbe used to produce features sizes that are less than 100 nm.

The photolithographic systems for producing these small feature sizespreferably include all-reflective optics. Dioptric and Catadioptric typeprojection systems used today for deep ultraviolet (DUV) lithographyincluding refractive optics are not desirable for use in extremeultraviolet (EUV) lithography systems due to absorption of the EUVradiation in the bulk optical material.

At any given mirror of an optical system, it is useful to quantify theincidence angles of the imaging bundle with respect to the “chief ray.”The chief ray from a given field point is the ray that emanates fromthis field point and passes through the center of the aperture stop. Toa good approximation, the mean angle of incidence of any mirror can beestimated by the angle of incidence of the chief ray that emanates fromthe field point that lies in the center of the ring field. To be moreprecise, this field point lies in the tangential plane of the projectionsystem at the midpoint of the radial extremum of the arcuate field.

EUV projection lithography is enabled by multilayer coatings that arecapable of reflecting approximately 70% of the incident EUV radiation.EUV multilayers include bilayers of Mo/Si and Mo/Be which have beenunder development for a number of years and are well understood. It isunderstood in the present invention that since these multilayers rely ona periodic structure to build a reflected wavefront, their performanceis sensitive to changes in incidence angle and wavelength.

All-reflective projection lithographic camera systems that support 100nm resolution with a numerical aperture (NA) in the range of 0.08 to0.10 are well established in the patent literature. These systems arecentered 3- and 4-mirror reflective anastigmats that are optimized tooperate over a narrow ringfield. Since it is difficult to control fielddependent aberrations (i.e., astigmatism and distortion) to EUVrequirements, freedom to control the pupil dependence of the aberrationsis necessarily limited. As a result, the numerical aperture of thesesystems is necessarily restricted to approximately 0.10 for ring fieldof any substantial width (1.5 mm).

The theoretical resolution (R), or critical dimension (CD) of alithographic imaging system can be expressed by the well-knownrelationship R=CD=k₁λ/NA, where k₁, is a process dependent constant, λis the wavelength of light, and NA is the numerical aperture of theprojection system. For example, an EUV projection system using a 13.4 nmradiation source and having a k₁, factor of 0.6 and a 0.25 NA canachieve a theoretical resolution on the order of approximately 30 nm. Asthe critical dimension is reduced, the static distortion should becorrespondingly reduced. Specifically, depending on the criticaldimension, the static distortion should be reduced to less than about ⅕at most, and preferably and generally to less than {fraction (1/10)} ofthe critical dimension. For example, if CD is 30 nm, then the staticdistortion should be reduced to less than 3 nm. The static distortion isa measure of the average positional error of focused rays within thefocal plane of an optical system. It is desired to have an unobscuredmulti-mirror projection systems for EUV projection lithography that hasboth a large numerical aperture that is on the order of 0.25 and lowstatic distortion that is on the order of {fraction (1/10)} of thecritical dimension (CD) or less. Clearly, these projection systems areneeded if EUV lithography is to address the sub-100 nm linewidthgenerations as defined by the SIA roadmap.

One of the first optical systems to address this high NA EUV requirementis disclosed in U.S. Pat No. 5,212,588 entitled, “Reflective OpticalImaging System for Extreme Ultraviolet Wavelengths” issuing toViswanathan et al., which is herein incorporated by reference. Amulti-bounce projection system that incorporates two coaxial asphericmirrors in a four-bounce configuration is disclosed by Viswanathan andNewnam in the '588 patent and is reproduced at FIG. 1 herein. Mirror M1is convex and mirror M2 is concave. To obtain high-resolution imagery,the field curvature should be corrected such that the sum of thecurvatures of the focusing surfaces of the system, known as the “Petzvalsum”, are substantially zero. This is known as the “flat fieldcondition.” Viswanathan and Newnam designed the system disclosed in the'588 patent so that the two mirrors M1 and M2 have substantially thesame radius of curvature, and since M1 is convex and M2 is concave, theflat field condition is satisfied. While the '588 patent describes anumber of embodiments with excellent performance over a range ofnumerical aperture up to 0.3 at DUV wavelengths, all of theseembodiments suffer from one common flaw: the exit pupil is centrallyobscured by mirror M1. This central obscuration will degrade the MTFresponse of the system at the mid-spatial frequencies relative to thecut-off frequency. Since the obscuration is large, this loss of contrastwill lead to CD variation across the field and yield unacceptablelithographic imaging performance effectively reducing the lithographicprocess window. Furthermore, the mask (and hence the wafer) plane wouldbe tilted to enable the use of a reflective mask. This introduces addedengineering difficulties when a production environment is considered.

The high NA EUV requirement is also discussed briefly by the disclosurein U.S. Pat. No. 5,315,629 entitled, “Ringfield Lithography” issuing toJewell et al., which is herein incorporated by reference. Jewell andThompson disclose in the '629 patent that their four-mirror, positive,negative, positive, positive (or PNPP) configuration can be used at anumerical aperture of 0.14, “. . . without significant loss in imagequality (still diffraction-limited performance), if the image distortionrequirement is relaxed.” Jewell and Thompson do not quantify what thisrelaxation is, but their basic system, reproduced herein at FIG. 2, witha NA of 0.10, has approximately 10 nm of distortion across a 0.5 mmring. As the numerical aperture of their system is scaled-up, theability to control the distortion is lost since the available degrees offreedom are consumed to correct aberrations that scale with the NA. Astudy of the Jewell and Thompson design reveals that the distortiongrows to around 30-40 nm at the edge of the ring field as otheraberrations are corrected at this increased numerical aperture. This issimply too much distortion for a practical lithographic reductionsystem, even when the effects of scan-averaging are included.

Neither the two mirror system of Viswanathan nor the four-mirror systemof Jewell and Thompson has sufficient degrees of freedom. It isdifficult, if not impossible, to configure a four-mirror optical systemto produce a system having satisfactorily high NA (i.e., at least o.25),large ringfield width (i.e., at least 2 mm) and low static distortion(i.e., less than CD/10). For example, starting with either of thesystems of FIGS. 1 and 2, the relative positions of the mask, wafer andfour mirrors, optimizing the sign and/or magnitude of the curvatures ofthe four mirrors, and the aspheric profiles of the mirrors, leads tounsatisfactory results.

Ringfield width has a direct influence on wafer throughput, directlyinfluencing the cost of ownership of a lithography system. A systemhaving an increased ringfield width, e.g., 2.0-3.0 mm, has acorrespondingly increased throughput. However, the system must stillmaintain low distortion across its ringfield width if it is to beuseful. Static distortion will generally increase with increasedringfield width, but still should be corrected to less thansubstantially CD/10.

Generally, four-mirror systems simply do not have a sufficient number ofdegrees of freedom to correct aberrations such as distortion at anumerical aperture of 0.25 over any meaningful field size. The number ofdegrees of freedom can be increased by adding optical surfaces in such amanner as to enhance the simultaneous correction of both the field andpupil dependent aberrations across the narrow ring field. Since the stepand scan method is used to print the entire field, it is practical toinvestigate solutions with an even number of reflections so that themask and wafer can be placed on opposing sides of the system to ensureinterference-free travel of the mask and wafer. It is desired then toinvestigate systems having at least six reflective surfaces.

Recently, optical projection reduction systems have been disclosed thatoffer high numerical apertures with six and eight reflections. One suchsystem is disclosed in U.S. Pat No. 5,686,728 entitled, “ProjectionLithography System and Method Using All-Reflective Optical Elements,”issuing to Shafer, which is herein incorporated by reference. In the'728 patent, Shafer describes an eight mirror projection system with anumerical aperture of around 0.50 and a six mirror projection systemwith a numerical aperture of around 0.45. The eight and six mirrorsystems of Shafer are reproduced, respectively, at FIGS. 3a and 3 bherein.

These systems were designed for DUV lithography, and, while fine forthat purpose, are not necessarily suitable for EUV projectionlithography, even after the NA has been reduced from around 0.50 toaround 0.25. By way of example, mirror M1 in the six mirror embodimentof FIG. 3b is essentially flat making it difficult to test with state ofthe art visible light interferometers designed to measure asphericmirrors to the required accuracy (see Gary E. Sommergren, “PhaseShifting Diffraction Interferometry for Measuring Extreme UltravioletOptics”, OSA TOPS on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Vol. 4, pp.108-112 (1996)).

Another high numerical aperture projection system is the disclosure inU.S. Pat. No. 5,815,310 entitled, “High Numerical Aperture Ring FieldOptical Reduction System” issuing to Williamson, which is hereinincorporated by reference. In the '310 patent, Williamson describes twosix mirror ring field projection systems intended for use with both DUVand EUV radiation. A first arrangement of Williamson, reproduced hereinat FIG. 4a, consists, from long conjugate to short conjugate, ofconcave, convex, concave, concave, convex, and concave surfaces, orPNPPNP for short. This projection system has a numerical aperture of0.25 and is intended for EUV radiation. A second arrangement ofWilliamson, reproduced herein at FIG. 4b consists, from long conjugateto short conjugate, of concave, convex, concave, concave, convex, andconcave surfaces, or PNPPNP for short. This projection system has anumerical aperture of 0.55 and is intended for DUV radiation. Referringspecifically to FIG. 4a, the projection system is capable of 30 nmlithography using conservative values for k₁ around 0.6. Williamsondiscloses both the PNPPNP and the PPPPNP reimaging configurationslocating an intermediate image in various locations, always near themirror pair comprising the third and fourth concave mirrors.

The EUV arrangement suffers from the following drawbacks. First, largepeak aspheric departures are present on each of mirror M1 and mirror M5.To enable tests of the surface figure, a complex null lens or computergenerated hologram (CGH) is needed to provide the required asphericreference wavefront. Using a null lens or CGH would seriously compromisethe absolute accuracy of the test and could potentially lead to errorsthat would prevent convergence to the proper aspheric figure. Asphericdepartures on the order of less than approximately 15 μm across anyreasonably sized clear aperture would enable a center of curvature testusing visible light metrology without using a null lens or CGH. The peakdepartures on mirrors M1 and M5 of the '310 patent of Williamson are 30μm and 18.5 μm, respectively, across the clear aperture of the off-axissection. In all likelihood, these large departures require the use of anull lens, a CGH or a data reduction scheme whereby multiple subaperturedata sets are “stitched” together. Neither of these metrology techniquesis preferred. A system with mirrored surfaces each having low asphericdeparture is desired.

Another issue with the systems disclosed by Williamson is the highincidence angles at each of the mirrored surfaces, particularly onmirrors M2 and M3. In some instances, the angle of incidence exceeds 24°at a given location of a mirror. Both the mean angle and deviation orspread of angles is sufficient to cause noticeable amplitude and phaseeffects due to the EUV multilayer coatings.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is recognized in the present invention that multilayer coatings areformed to optimally reflect rays of light incident at predeterminedincidence angles. It is further recognized that the reflectivity ofthese coatings will decrease more rapidly for rays incident at anglesvarying from the predetermined incidence angle as the predeterminedincidence angle is increased. That is, projection systems are moresusceptible to phase errors induced by the multilayers when the meanangle of incidence is greater. Therefore, to be compatible withmultilayer coatings, the mean incidence angle at the mirrors of theprojection lithography system should be minimized. Preferably, the angleof incidence of the chief ray from the central field point is less thansubstantially 12°-15°. Moreover, the angular deviation of the imagingbundles at any point on the mirror should also be minimized. Thisminimization would act to reduce both phase and amplitude errorsimparted to the imaging bundle by the multilayers. By reducing thesephase and amplitude errors, a robust EUV projection lithography opticalsystem is achieved.

It is desired to have an all-reflective optical system for EUVphotolithography having at least six reflective surfaces, thereby havingsufficient degrees of freedom to form highly corrected images. It isalso desired to configure the system such that each reflective surfacereceives the EUV light at a low angle of incidence. Each reflectivesurface of the desired system would also preferably have low asphericdeparture to improve manufacturability and testability. The desiredsystem would then be suited to resolve sub-100 nm features based on alarge NA and the short wavelength EUV radiation source being used. Thesystem would feature an enhanced ringfield width for greater waferthroughput while having low static distortion across the width.

It is therefore a first object of the present invention to provide anall-reflective optical imaging system for extreme ultraviolet (EUV)photolithography including at least six reflecting surfaces configuredto receive light from an EUV source at low angles of incidence.

It is a second object of the invention to provide an all-reflectiveoptical imaging system for EUV lithography including at least sixreflecting surfaces wherein the reflecting surfaces exhibit low asphericdepartures.

It is a third object of the invention to provide an all-reflectiveoptical imaging system for EUV lithography including at least sixreflecting surfaces and having a large NA, a large ringfield width, anda low distortion such that small features may be resolved and largewafer throughput may be realized.

In accord with the first object, an all-reflective optical imagingsystem is provided for EUV photolithography having a first concavemirror, a second convex or concave mirror, a third convex mirror, afourth concave mirror, a fifth convex mirror and a sixth concave mirror.The mirrors are configured such that each receives EUV light at a lowincidence angle. For example, five of the six mirrors may receive thechief ray from the central field point at an angle of incidence of lessthan substantially 9°, or alternatively 12°, and all six mirrors mayeach receive the chief ray at less than substantially 13°, or 15°,respectively.

In accord with the second object, an all-reflective optical imagingsystem is provided for EUV photolithography having at least sixreflecting surfaces, wherein from long conjugate to short conjugate thefirst mirror is concave and four of the six reflecting surfaces has anaspheric departure of less than substantially 7 μm, five of the sixreflecting surfaces has an aspheric departure of less than substantially11 μm, or alternatively 14 μm, and each reflecting surface has anaspheric departure of not more than substantially 15 μm, or 16 μm,respectively.

In further accord with the second object, an all-reflective opticalimaging system is provided for EUV photolithography having at least sixreflecting surfaces, wherein from long conjugate to short conjugate thefirst mirror has a concave reflecting surface and an aspheric departurebetween between 9 μm and 21 μm, or alternatively between 3.8 μm and 8.8μm. The second mirror has an aspheric departure between 0.3 μm and 0.7μm, or between 2.6 μm and 5.4 μm, respectively. The third mirror has anaspheric departure between 8 μm and 18 μm, or between between 1 μm and2.4 μm, respectively. The fourth mirror has an aspheric departurebetween 1.5 μm and 3.7 μm, or between between 2.7 μm and 6.3 μm,respectively. The fifth mirror has an aspheric departure between 3 μmand 7 μm, or between 6 μm and 14 μm, respectively. The sixth mirror hasan aspheric departure between 3.8 μm and 8.8 μm, or between 8.9 μm and18.7 μm, respectively.

In accord with the third object, an all-reflective optical imagingsystem is provided for EUV photolithography including at least sixreflecting surfaces, and having a NA between 0.2 and 0.3 or better,distortion corrected to better than 1.0 nm, and a ringfield widthbetween substantially 2.0 mm and 3.0 mm or wider. The system is capableof resolving sub-100 nm structures at the wafer reliably andefficiently.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 shows a first projection lithography optical system of the priorart.

FIG. 2 shows a second projection lithography optical system of the priorart.

FIG. 3a shows a third projection lithography optical system of the priorart.

FIG. 3b shows a fourth projection lithography optical system of theprior art.

FIG. 4a shows a fifth projection lithography optical system of the priorart.

FIG. 4b shows a sixth projection lithography optical system of the priorart.

FIG. 5 shows a projection lithography optical system including anoptical system in accord with a first embodiment of the presentinvention.

FIG. 6 shows the static distortion as a function of ring field positionfor the system of FIG. 5

FIG. 7 shows a projection lithography optical system including anoptical system in accord with a second embodiment of the presentinvention.

FIG. 8 shows the static distortion as a function of ring field positionfor the system of FIG. 7.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

A first preferred embodiment of an EUV optical projection systemaccording to the present invention is shown in FIG. 5. To provide a highnumerical aperture on the order of 0.25, the six mirror system of FIG. 5addresses the aforementioned problems of the systems that define thecurrent state of the art. Linewidths on the order of 30 nm areresolveable with this six mirror design. For example, 32 nm resolutionis achieved by a system having a 13.4 nm source, a k₁ value of 0.6 and anumerical aperture of 0.25 (using R=kλ/NA). A linewidth of 27 nm isachieved using an 11.3 nm source.

First Preferred Embodiment: PPNPNP Optical Reduction System

The radii, aspheric prescription, and the axial separation of themirrors of the system of FIG. 5 are shown in Table 1. Specification dataas defined at the plane of the mask are also included in Table 1.

In the first embodiment of the projection system of the presentinvention, as shown in FIG. 5 from long conjugate to short conjugate,the first mirror is concave, the second concave, the third convex, thefourth concave, the fifth convex, and the sixth concave. Denoting aconcave mirror with a ‘P’ (positive optical power) and a convex mirrorwith an ‘N’ (negative optical power), the configuration of the firstembodiment may be described as “PPNPNP”.

The convex third mirror is advantageous because it allows the system toachieve lower chief ray angles of incidence. These angles of incidenceare lower by up to 4° per surface. As discussed, lower incidence anglesare advantageous, particularly in EUV systems, because they result inhigher reflectivities and reduced phase errors and amplitude.

The concave first mirror is advantageous because it allows the system tobe made doubly telecentric allowing a transmission mask to be used.Double telecentricity means that the chief rays CR may pass through thetransmission mask at normal incidence, as well as impinge upon the waferat normal incidence, and be parallel to the optical axis of the system.In addition, the split of optical power between concave mirror M1 andconcave mirror M2 allows the ringfield width to scale beyond a 2.0 mmaffording an increase in throughput.

The absolute values of the mirror radii are, from the object to theimage as a fraction of the system focal length, 7.7497, 3.4420, 1.4669,2.5370, 1.0548 and 1.2033 all to within around 10%. The axialseparations of the mirrors, as a fraction of the system focal length,are 1.4151 (first concave to second concave mirror), 1.4155 (concavesecondary to convex tertiary mirror), 3.0736 (convex tertiary to concavequaternary mirror), 3.0736 (concave quaternary to convex quintanary),−0.9905 (convex quintanary to concave sextanary) and 1.0955 (convexsextanary to wafer), all to within around 10%. All the mirrors areaspheric surfaces with 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, and 12th order polynomialdeformations.

Mirror M1 images the virtual entrance pupil located behind the mirror tothe surface of mirror M2. A physical aperture stop is located at mirrorM2 ensuring that each imaging bundle is defined in a like manner so thatthe imagery is stationary. In other words, the image quality (ignoringthe effect of aberrations) is independent of field position.

Mirrors M2-M4 work in conjunction with mirror M1 and can be consideredimaging group G1. Group G1 forms a minified image of the mask aftermirror M4. Imaging group G2 consists of mirror M5 and mirror M6.

Group G2 relays an intermediate image (I) formed by Group G1 to thewafer at the proper reduction, which in this embodiment is 4×. Theintermediate image I is preferably formed near the sixth mirror asubstantial distance from each of the third and fourth mirrors, to theshort conjugate side thereof. By substantial, it is meant that the thirdand fourth mirrors do not represent a field mirror pair. Advantages ofthis intermediate image I location include lowered chief ray incidenceangles and facilitated clearance of mirrors M5 and M6.

Group G2 also forms an image of the virtual pupil plane location behindmirror M5 at infinity, making the imaging bundles telecentric at thewafer plane. In this embodiment, group G1 works a magnification ofaround −0.8×while group G2 works at a magnification of around −0.3×,providing a magnification from mask to wafer of around 0.25×, or areduction of 4×.

In a system with an even number of bounces, it is possible to locate themask and wafer on opposing sides of the imaging system to allow forunrestricted travel of the synchronous scanning stages. To enableunrestricted travel, the projection system has sufficient clearance ateach conjugate. Clearance can be a problem at the wafer since the solidangle of the imaging bundles is a maximum at this location. This problemis exacerbated for all-reflective systems since the rays must passfreely around the mirrors to avoid clipping or vignetting (this is nottrue for dioptric or catadioptric systems where the light passes throughlens elements). A measure of the clearance is the working distance atthe wafer, and the back working distance is defined here to be thedistance from the vertex of mirror M5 to the wafer (thus ignoring thefinite thickness of mirror M5). In this preferred embodiment the backworking distance is around 47 mm, which is at least a factor 2× largerthan systems representing the state of the art. Complete data forreconstructing the system of FIG. 5 are contained in Table 1.

For convenience, the prescription of the first embodiment of FIG. 5 hasbeen listed in Code V ™ format in Table 1. The mirrored surfaces arenumbered 1-6 with surface S1 corresponding to mirror M1, S2corresponding to mirror M2, and so on. Two additional surfaces completethe description with SO and IMG representing the mask (object) and wafer(image) planes, respectively. After the surface number, there are twoadditional entries that list the radius of curvature (R) and the vertexto vertex spacing between the optical surfaces. The ASP entry after eachsurface denotes a rotationally symmetric conic surface with higher-orderpolynomial deformations. The aspheric profile is uniquely determined byits K, A, B, C, D, and E values. Each mirror uses 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th,and 12th order polynomial deformations. The sag of the aspheric surface(through 12th order) in the direction of the z-axis (z) is given by:$z = {\frac{{ch}^{2}}{1 + \sqrt{1 - {\left( {1 + k} \right)c^{2}h^{2}}}} + {A\quad h^{4}} + {B\quad h^{6}} + {C\quad h^{8}} + {D\quad h^{10}} + {E\quad h^{12}}}$

where h is the radial coordinate; c is the curvature of the surface(1/R); and A, B, C, D, and E are the 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, and 12th orderdeformation coefficients, respectively.

TABLE 1.0 Optical Design Prescription OBJ: RDY THI GLA 1: INFINITY787.392402 −3450.93589 −630.155208 REFL ASP: K: −38.299224 A: 0.0000E 00B: 0.282365E−15 C: 0.730144E − 20 D: 0.544186E − 25 E: −.247051E − 29 F:0.000000E + 00 G: 0.000000E + 00 H: 0.000000E + 00 STO: 1532.71144630.310821 REFL ASP: K: −15.017493 A: 0.000000E + 00 B: −.797760E − 14C: −.700433E − 19 D: −.784265E − 24 E: 0.223019E− 29 F: 0.000000E + 00G: 0.00000E + 00 H: 0.00000E + 00 3: 653.21356 −702.980548 REFL ASP: K:0.146559 A: 0.00000E + 00 B: 0.576140E − 15 C: −.122689E− 18 D: 0560985E− 23 E: −.158267E− 27 F: 0.000000E + 00 G: 0.000000 + 00 H: 0.00000E +00 4: 1129.74922 1368.678937 REFL ASP: K: 0.013731 A: 0.00000E + 00 B:0.514091E − 17 C: −.316462E − 22 D: 0.128041E − 27 E: −.257739E− 33 F:0.000000E + 00 G: 0.00000E + 00 H: 0.00000E + 00 5: 469.71111−441.069409 REFL ASP: K: 5.109912 A: 0.000000E + 00 B: −.974662E − 13 C:−.838936E − 17 D: −.289808E − 21 E: −.355934E− 25 F: 0.000000E + 00 G:0.00000E + 00 H: 0.00000E + 00 6 535.82146 487.822906 REFL ASP: K:0.126157 A: 0.00000E + 00 B: 0.141195E − 15 C: 0.954716E − 21 D:0.595577E − 26 E: 0.743605E− 32 F: 0.000000E + 00 G: 0.00000E + 00 H:0.00000E + 00 IMG: INFINITY 0.000000 SPECIFICATION DATA NAO 0.06250 DMMM WL 13.40 REF 1 WTW 1 XOB 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 YOB 116.00000120.00000 124.00000 VUY 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 VLY 0.00000 0.000000.00000

The specification data has also been included in Table 1 for thepreferred embodiment. The numerical aperture at the object (NAO) is0.0625 radians; this specification sets the angular divergence of theimaging bundles at the mask. The YOB designation defines the extent ofthe ring field in the scan dimension. The ring field is centered at 120mm above the optical axis (OA) which contains the parent vertex of eachof the mirrors. This field extends from 116 mm to 124 mm giving a ringthat is 8 mm wide at the mask. At 4×reduction, the ring field becomes2.0 mm wide at the wafer plane.

Performance Summary of First Embodiment

Table 2 summarizes the performance of the PPNPNP configuration of FIG.5, with the detailed distortion analysis being shown in FIG. 6 and Table3. As discussed above, the optical system of FIG. 5 has very lowincidence angles. The system preferably does not include a field groupnear the intermediate image. The intermediate image is located betweenmirrors M4 and M5 to maximize ray clearance in the aft end of thesystem. The NA is 0.25 and the ring field width is 2 mm (centered on aradius of 30 mm) at the wafer. The composite RMS wavefront error is0.018λ(0.24 nm), and the static distortion is corrected to better than0.31 nm. The system of FIG. 5 may be scaled in either NA or field. Forexample, the RMS wavefront error is only 0.0278 (0.36 nm) when the NA isscaled to 0.28, representing a RMS error without reoptimization at thehigher NA. Alternatively, the ring field width can be scaled to inexcess of 2 mm.

The length or total track from mask to wafer is 1500 mm. This systemexhibits very low incidence angles, as measured by the chief ray fromthe field point, ranging from 3.3° to 12.0°. Due to the variation in rayangles across mirrors M1 and M5, these mirrors are candidates for gradedmultilayers. The chief ray incidence angles from the central field pointare: Mask: 4.0°; M1: 5.0°; M2: 6.0°; M3: 12.0°; M4: 3.3°, M5: 8.8°, andM6: 3.3°. This design uses a low incidence angle at the mask to minimizeimage placement errors that may otherwise result from errors in thelongitudinal position of the mask.

In addition to the low incidence angles, a preferred system in accordwith the present invention utilizes low peak aspheric departure. Themaximum peak departure, contained on mirror M1, is 15.0 μm. The othermirrors have low-risk aspheres with departures that range from 0.5 μm to13 μm, consistent with the current alpha tool experience. As discussedabove, low aspheric departures of the mirror surfaces facilitate visiblelight metrology testing without a null lens or CGH, resulting in a highdegree of accuracy.

TABLE 2.0 Summary Data (031298a) Metric Performance Wavelength 13.4 mmNumerical aperture  0.25 Ringfield format i. Radius 30.0 mm ii. Width 2.0 mm iii. Chord 26.0 mm Reduction ratio (nominal) 4:1 Residual RMSwavefront error (waves @ λ = 13.4 nm) i. F1 - 116 mm  0.014λ ii. F2 -118 mm  0.015λ iii. F3 - 120 mm  0.024λ iv. F4 - 122 mm  0.014λ v. F5 -124 mm  0.020λ Chief ray distortion (max) −0.31 nm Exit pupil locationInfinity Aperture stop Accessible on M2 Maximum aspheric departureacross Instantaneous clear aperture (ICA) i. M1 15.0 μm ii. M2  0.5 μmiii. M3 13.0 μm iv. M4  2.6 μm v. M5  5.0 μm vi. M6  6.3 μm

TABLE 3.0 Chief ray and centroid distortion (031298a) Ideal image pointChief ray distortion Centroid distortion (mm) (nm) (nm) 29.0 −0.01  −0.47   29.2 0.20 −0.11   29.4 0.27 0.11 29.6 0.25 0.17 29.8 0.14 0.1430.0 0.00 0.05 30.2 −0.15   −0.05   30.4 −0.26   −0.12   30.6 −0.31  −0.12   30.8 −0.24   0.03 31.0 −0.01   0.37

Second Preferred Embodiment: PNNPNP Optical Reduction System

A second embodiment of an EUV optical projection system according to thepresent invention is shown in FIG. 7. The radii, aspheric prescription,and the axial separation of the mirrors can be found in Table 4.Specification data as defined at the plane of the mask are also includedin Table 4.

In the second embodiment of the present invention shown in FIG. 7, fromlong conjugate to short conjugate, the first mirror is concave, thesecond convex, the third convex, the fourth concave, the fifth convex,and the sixth concave. Denoting a concave mirror with a ‘P’ (positiveoptical power) and a convex mirror with an ‘N’ (negative optical power,the configuration may alternately be described as PNNPNP. The absolutevalues of the mirror radii are, from the object to the image as afraction of the system focal length, 2.2401, 5.2694, 2.2435, 2.7526,1.0804, and 1.3129 all to within around 10%. The axial separations ofthe mirrors, as a fraction of the system focal length, are 0.6974 (firstconvex to second concave mirror), 0.6266 (concave secondary to convextertiary mirror), 1.8641 (convex tertiary to concave quaternary mirror),3.2723 (concave quaternary to convex quintanary), 1.0619 (convexquintanary to concave sextanary), and 1.2264 (concave sextanary towafer) all to within around 10%. All the mirrors are conic surfaces with6th, 8th, 10th, order polynomial deformations. A physical aperture stopis again preferably located at mirror M2. The back working distance ofthe second embodiment is around 65 mm, which is at least a factor of2×larger than systems that represent the state of the art.

Complete data needed to reconstruct the optical reduction system iscontained in Table 4. The numerical aperture at the object (NAO) is0.0625 radians; this specification sets the angular divergence of theimaging bundles at the mask. The YOB designation defines the extent ofthe ring field in the scan dimension. The ring field is centered at 120mm above the optical axis (OA) which contains the parent vertex of eachof the mirrors. This field extends from 116 mm to 124 mm giving a ringthat is 8 mm wide at the mask. At 4×reduction, the ring field becomes2.0 mm wide at the wafer plane.

PNNPNP Performance Summary

Table 5, in conjunction with the distortion analysis shown in FIG. 8 andTable 6, summarizes the performance of the second preferred embodimentshown in FIG. 7. The PNNPNP configuration of FIG. 7 achieves a highlevel of low-order aberration correction using just the base sphericalsurfaces. By aspherizing the mirrors, lithographic levels of performanceare obtained. At a numerical aperture of 0.25, the design has acomposite RMS wavefront error of 0.012λ(0.16 nm) and less than 0.25 nmof distortion across its 2 mm ring field.

Based on the low residual wavefront error and corresponding Zernikedecomposition of the wavefront, it is apparent that the design exhibitsrobust lithographic performance. Asymmetric aberrations to all ordersare virtually eliminated. And the impact of residual even-orderaberrations will be nullified via scan averaging. The system of FIG. 7may be further increased in NA or ring field width. Numerical aperturesin excess of 0.25 or field widths in excess of 2 mm are possible.

TABLE 4.0 Optical Design Prescription OBJ: RDY THI GLA 1: INFINITY853.088868 −884.24901 −275.277118 REFL ASP: K: −2.568087 A: B: C: D:0.000000E + 00 −.249449E-14 0.326185E-19 −.308806E-24 STO: - 247.349533REFL 2079.98831 ASP: K: 61.688671 A: B: C: D: 0.000000E + 00−.686840E-13 −.165948E-17 −.162449E-22 3: 885.59434 −735.806697 REFLASP: K: −6.390777 A: B: C: D: 0.000000E + 00 0.443004E-14 −.981256E-190.643453E-24 4: 1086.55528 1291.683808 REFL ASP: K: −0.011987 A: B: C:D: 0.000000E + 00 0.847450E-18 0.226667E-23 −.615312E-29 5: 426.46618−419.170197 REFL ASP: K: 1.574688 A: B: C: D: 0.000000E + 000.216838E-12 −.855144E-17 0.190246E-21 6: 518.23488 484.113983 REFL ASP:K: 0.057682 A: B: C: D: 0.000000E + 00 0.934362E-16 0.467721E-210.290089E-26 IMG: INFINITY 0.000000 SPECIFICATION DATA NAO  0.06250 DIMMM WL  13.40 REF  1 WTW  1 XOB  0.00000  0.00000  0.00000 YOB 116.00000120.00000 124.00000

The design has a total track length of around 1450 mm that is only 3.67×its focal length. The peak aspheric departure is around 1 5.0 μm and islocated on mirror M1 for this focal length. The other mirrors have peakdepartures that range from 0.5 μm to 11.0 μm, for this focal length.This is significant since these low departures lower mirror fabricationand metrology risk, as well as alignment sensitivity. As a result of thenovel distribution of optical power and spacing between the mirrors, theincidence angles are well controlled so that the design is compatiblewith EUV multilayer coatings. For reference, the chief ray incidenceangles are as follows: Mask 4.3°; M1: 7.9°; M2: 11.5°; M3: 14.7°; M4:3.2°; M5: 9.2°; and M6: 3.3°.

While the present invention has been described in terms of the preferredembodiments above, those skilled in the art will readily appreciate thatnumerous modifications, substitutions, and additions may be made to thedisclosed embodiments without departing from the spirit or scope of theinvention.

TABLE 5.0. Summary Data Metric Performance Wavelength 13.4 nm Numericalaperture  0.25 Ringfield format i. Radius 30.0 mm ii. Width  2.0 mm iii.Chord 26.0 mm Reduction ratio (nominal) 4:1 Residual RMS wavefront error(waves @ λ = 13.4 nm) i. F1 - 116 mm 0.014λ ii. F2 - 118 mm 0.008λ iii.F3 - 120 mm 0.015λ iv. F4 - 122 mm 0.008λ v. F5 - 124 mm 0.013λ Chiefray distortion (max) 0.27 nm Exit pupil location Infinity Aperture stopAccessible on M2 Maximum aspheric departure across instantaneous clearaperture (ICA) i. M1  6.3 μm ii. M2  4.0 μm iii. M3  1.7 μm iv. M4  4.5μm v. M5 10.0 μm vi. M6 14.8 μm

TABLE 6.0 Chief ray and centroid distortion Ideal image point Chief raydistortion Centroid distortion (mm) (nm) (nm) 29.0 0.27 0.16 29.2 0.230.17 29.4 0.18 0.15 29.6 0.11 0.12 29.8 0.05 0.08 30.0 0.00 0.04 30.2−0.03   0.01 30.4 −0.04   0.01 30.6 −0.01   0.03 30.8 0.08 0.10 31.00.23 0.22

What is claimed is:
 1. An all-reflective optical system for a projectionphotolithography camera having a source of EUV radiation, a wafer and amask to be imaged on the wafer, comprising: at least six reflectingsurfaces for imaging said mask on said wafer, wherein a first reflectingsurface, from long conjugate to short conjugate, is a first mirrorhaving a concave reflecting surface, wherein five of the six reflectingsurfaces has an aspheric departure of less than substantially 14 μm. 2.The system of claim 1, wherein the six reflecting surfaces are, fromlong conjugate to short conjugate, said first mirror having said concavereflecting surface; a second mirror a third mirror having a convexreflecting surface; a fourth mirror having a concave reflecting surface;a fifth mirror having a convex reflecting surface a sixth mirror havinga concave reflecting surface.
 3. An all-reflective optical system for aprojection photolithography camera having a source of EUV radiation, awafer and a mask to be imaged on the wafer, comprising: at least sixreflecting surfaces for imaging said mask on said wafer, wherein a firstreflecting surface, from long conjugate to short conjugate, is a firstmirror having a concave reflecting surface, wherein each of the sixreflecting surfaces has an aspheric departure of less than substantially16 μm.
 4. The system of claim 3, wherein the six reflecting surfacesare, from long conjugate to short conjugate, said first mirror havingsaid concave reflecting surface; a second mirror a third mirror having aconvex reflecting surface; a fourth mirror having a concave reflectingsurface; a fifth mirror having a convex reflecting surface a sixthmirror having a concave reflecting surface.
 5. An all-reflective opticalsystem for a projection photolithography camera having a source of EUVradiation, a wafer and a mask to be imaged on the wafer, comprising: atleast six reflecting surfaces for imaging said mask on said wafer,wherein a first reflecting surface, from long conjugate to shortconjugate, is a first mirror having a concave reflecting surface, andfour of the six reflecting surfaces each has an aspheric departure ofless than substantially 6.6 μm.
 6. The system of claim 5, wherein thesix reflecting surfaces are, from long conjugate to short conjugate,said first mirror having said concave reflecting surface; a secondmirror a third mirror having a convex reflecting surface; a fourthmirror having a concave reflecting surface; a fifth mirror having aconvex reflecting surface a sixth mirror having a concave reflectingsurface.